The Portland daily press., 1887-04-15
Internal Revenue Records as Evil
denCe.

Section 3240 of the Revised Statutes OF
the United States provides that
Each collector of internal revenue shall, under
regulations of the commissioner OF internal reVe
for public inspection. an alphabetical list OF me
names of all persons who shall have pald special
taxes within MS district, and shall state therein
the time, place aud business Tor Wnlcn suen spe-
eial taxes have been paid.
Mr. Thomas f. Murphy is deputy collector
of internal revenue for the middle district of
this State. His Office at Augusta is not lit
orally the office of the collector. That is To-
Gated at Ellsworth. In Mr. Murphys Office
apparently, no such record as is described in
the section above quoted is kept, the law be-
ing construed to apply merely to the main
office, of which Mr.. Murphys is branch.
This we infer from his testimony before the
court at Augusta, Wednesday, in which he
said that the list he kept was private mem
orandum for his own guidance as an officer
of the government The question, therefore,
whether Mr. Murphy can be compelled to
produce in State court this record or fur
nish a certified copy of it, is not the same
question as whether Collector Refman
can be compelled to produce the public REQ
ord kept in his office or furnish a certified
copy of it. If the United States Court
should decide that Mr.. Murphy could not be
compelled to produce the record he describes
or certified copy of it, it would not be tan
tamount to a decision that the collector was
absolved from producing his public record
or a certified copy of that. If the State
Courts could not get what Deputy Collector
Murphy calls his private record, it could
still apply to Collector Redman for his pub
lie record.
On what ground could Collector Redman
refuse to furnish this record or a certified
copy, which is just as good, for the Maine
court has held that it is admissible as evil
dence, and has the force of the original rec
ord? Not on the ground that Deputy Col
lector Murphy takes that they are private
records, for the law expressly declares that
they are public-kept for the benefit of who
ever may care to inspect them. Perhaps he
might take Mr.. Murphy's other ground, that
to exhibit these records in court would tend
to reduce the governments receipts and
therefore be against public policy. But
a decision that would sustain that ground
would overthrow the prohibitory law Of the
State which evidently tends to reduce the in
ternal revenue receipts of the United States.
Besides the act of the United States itself
expressly exposingas it does the business to
the public would seem to be a complete ans
wer to any claim of that sort. The exposure
of these records to the public view in the Of
fee of the collector must tend to cut down the
government receipts. 1t furnishes clews to
the officers who administer the State laws as
to where liquor is sold and enables them to
break up the rum business which pays tax
to the government. Furthermore there is
nothing in the United States statutes to
prevent jury engaged in the trial of man
for rumselling from entering the Office Of
the collector of internal revenue and in.
specting for themselves his official public
record of the names of the men who have
paid special taxes. 1t is not at all likely
therefore that any court will sustain the posi-
ton that it is against public policy for col
lector of internal revenue to expose bust
ness which Congress has expressly ordered
shall be exposed, simply because he is ask
ed to make the exposure in court of justice
1t is not probable that any court will decide
that a United States government officer can
debar court of State from information
open to any one of its citizens by ex.
press statute of that government by refusing
to certify that that information is correct.